...
I believe there are scientists on both side of the fence, and I'm sure TMC members also. (Kaivball is just one reason this thread is ongoing and intriguing.. thanks )
As a newbie my perception is that "Man Made" Global Warming is like a religion with believers, non-believers, atheists and agnostics and where the scientists are the Gods.
I might be considered an Atheist on this subject and keep an open mind. What can I do ? I bought a TESLA. Hope that helps in some small way.
Zapped,
While there are a large group of so-called "scientific" naysayers and deniers, many of whom have known links to fossil industry interests - you can find a number of them discussed at
http://www.desmogblog.com/, if you limit the field to those whose area of study and specialization is climate science the number of denier scientists dwindles to very close to zero. Of the remaining holdouts, a number, such as the noted skeptic Professor Richard Muller, have relatively recently switched sides. As described in an article in Scientific American:
The University of California, Berkeley, physicist once doubted the existence of climate change. Now he is convinced it's not only real but man-made, based on the latest results from his controversial review of temperature records.
"Call me a converted skeptic," Muller wrote in an
op-ed published yesterday in
The New York Times.
See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ian-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change
There is however a very small category of sceptics, of which Richard Lindzen of MIT is probably the most prominent example, who disagree with the current scienctific consensus concerning extent of climate change which is likely to result from a doubling of CO2. However, in a recent paper Lindzen acknowledges that manmade emissions will give rise to global warming on the order of about 1 degree C rather than the increases of 1.5 degrees C to 5 degrees C that are projected by the current scientific consensus, and for that reason should not be counted among the ranks of the true deniers.
See:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
In the scientific realm, of far greater weight than the views of individual scientists, are the positions adopted by the National Academies of Science. In this domain there is complete unanimity. No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which withdrew its dissenting statement in 2007.
By country, the concurring National Academies of Science are as follows:
Albania:
Academy of Sciences of Albania
Armenia:
Armenian National Academy of Sciences
Australia:
Australian Academy of Science,
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
Australian Academy of the Humanities,
Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia,
National Academies Forum
Austria:
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Belarus:
National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
Bosnia and Herzegovina:
Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria:
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Canada:
Royal Society of Canada
Cambodia: The
Royal Academy of Cambodia
People's Republic of China:
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Engineering,
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
Croatia:
Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Czech Republic -
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Denmark:
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Estonia:
Estonian Academy of Sciences
Finland:
The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (
Finnish
France: the
Institut de France
Germany:
Leopoldina
Greece:
Academy of Athens
Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Academy of the Humanities 香港人文學院
Hungary:
Hungarian Academy of Sciences (
Hungarian:
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia)
Hungarian Academy of Sciences [1]
Ireland:
Royal Irish Academy
Israel:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Italy:
Accademia dei Lincei
Japan: The
Japan Academy
Macedonia:
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Netherlands: The
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Norway: The
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Pakistan:
Pakistan Academy of Letters,
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Poland:
Polish Academy of Sciences,
Polish Academy of Learning
Portugal:
Academia das Ciências de Lisboa
Republic of China (
Taiwan):
Academia Sinica
Romania:
Romanian Academy
Russia:
Russian Academy of Sciences .
Scotland:
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Serbia:
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovenia:
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Spain: The
Royal Academy of Exact, Physic and Natural Sciences
Sweden:
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Thailand:
Royal Institute of Thailand
Turkey:
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Ukraine:
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
United Kingdom: the
Royal Society
United States: The
United States National Academies
Vatican City:
Pontifical Academy of Sciences
This degree of international unanimity among the National Science Academies means that global warming is the very antithesis of a religious belief.
The following is a brief summary of the scientific basics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Many of the elements are self evident and should not be controversial. Amongst climate scientists, the expected impact on the global temperature of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been known for more than 100 years and is not questioned any scientific body of national or international standing.
The key elements of global warming science may be summarized as follows:
1. The laws of physics require that the long wavelength infrared heat energy emitted by the earth into space must equal the incoming visible and ultraviolet solar energy in order to avoid heating or cooling the earth over time. Over the past 11,000 years, with the exception of relatively minor local perturbations, or changes attributable to events such as global cooling from large discharges of volcanic aerosols, incoming and outgoing energy flows have been generally in balance and the climate has been relatively stable.
2. Greenhouse gases differ from the principal constituents of the atmosphere in that greenhouse gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation but are somewhat opaque to and trap the infrared heat energy that is emitted by the earth thereby insulating the planet and causing it to warm to restore the energy balance between incoming and outgoing energy.
3. Human activity, principally the combustion of fossil carbon in the form of coal, oil and natural gas to create CO2, is adding increasing volumes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Current emissions exceed 30 billion tons per year.
4. About half of the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity are retained in the atmosphere and are increasing the percentages of the greenhouse gases very substantially relative to the stable levels over the past millennia. CO2, has gone up by more than a third and continues to rise, and methane has increased by approximately 150 percent.
5. The greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by human activity will remain in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, and block the escape of some heat energy thereby retaining such energy in the oceans, earth and lower atmosphere.
6. The average temperature on the earth will initially rise slowly over time due to the thermal lag associated with the heat storage capacities of the oceans but the rate of change is expected to increase over time as the levels of CO2 increase and due to a variety of positive feedback effects, increased water vapour in the atmosphere being principal among them.
The effects are equally simple and have been clearly documented by NASA and other credible scientific bodies and organizations as follows:
• Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) over the last 100 years.
• Worldwide, the last decade has been the warmest on record.
• The rate of warming across the globe over the last 50 years (0.24ºF per decade) is almost double the rate of warming over the last 100 years (0.13ºF per decade).
The evidence of climate change extends well beyond increases in global surface temperatures. It also includes:
• Changing precipitation patterns.
• Melting ice in the Arctic.
• Melting glaciers around the world.
• Increasing ocean temperatures.
• Rising sea level around the world.
• Acidification of the oceans due to elevated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Responses by plants and animals, such as shifting ranges.
The clarity and simplicity of the basic science, and the seriousness of the inevitable impacts of global warming led to the formation of the UNFCCC, IPCC, the adoption of Kyoto and numerous other national and international responses - none which would have occurred if there was any significant doubt as to the science.
Professor Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria has prepared a brief and very accessible summary of the scientific method and the science of global warming in his recent book: "Generation Us" which I would recommend to you, and anyone else wishing to learn more about the science.
If you are truly skeptical about AGW, please identify which element or elements of the six part summary that you believe is unproven. It would also be helpful if you could identify a recognized, peer-reviewed, climate scientist who takes issue with the scientific consensus and refer us to a publication explaining the basis for his or her position.